On The Value Of Knowledge-A Critical Analysis Of The Debate Between Greco And Lackey

There is a widespread intuition that knowledge is more valuable than the corresponding mere true belief.But why is knowledge more valuable than the corresponding mere true belief?This is called the Meno Problem.John Greco offers a virtue-theoretic solution to this Problem by arguing that knowledge is a kind of achievement.Jennifer Lackey objects Greco's account of knowledge.For it could be the case that S knows p and S does not have achievement.For example,CHICAGO VISITOR.In this paper,I offer a critical analysis of the debate and defend Greco's virtue-theoretic solution.In Chapter 1,I introduce the origin of the Meno Problem and three main approaches to the Meno Problem.The approach that addresses this Problem by denying that knowledge only has practical value is more desirable.For it is consistent with the intuition that knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.Moreover,it is simpler and has more explanatory power.Greco's virtue-theoretic solution is the representative of this approach.He argues that knowledge is a kind of achievement.Since achievement has final value,knowledge has final value.Mere true belief does not amount to any kind of achievement,and accordingly,it does not have the final value that knowledge has.Therefore,knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.In Chapter 2,I discuss Lackey's objection to Greco's account.She argues that Greco's solution does poorly with testimonial knowledge by offering a counter example,CHICAGO VISITOR.In this case,S has knowledge and S does not have achievement because S's having true belief is not explained in a substantive sense by S's abilities.After a careful analysis,Lackey's objection is proved to be based on a problematic premise that if S's having true belief is explained in a substantive sense by S's abilities,S's abilities must help explain both the existence and the truth content of the true belief.Thus,Lackey's objection to Greco's virtue-theoretic solution cannot stand.In Chapter 3,I show that how Greco replies to Lackey's objection.Greco debates on the explanatory salience with Lackey.Greco suggests that explanatory salience should be considered in terms of the purpose of knowledge.He claims that S's having achievement requires that S's abilities are appropriately involved in S's having true belief,so as to serve the purpose of practical reasoning.According to Greco's reply,in CHICAGO VISITOR,S has achievement,and thus Lackey's conclusion is proved to be false.Therefore,Greco's solution to the Meno Problem remains viable.Then,I consider two objections to Greco's reply and explain why these fail.In Chapter 4,I discuss Greco's epistemology of testimony.Greco makes a distinction between generated knowledge and transmitted knowledge to accommodate the phenomenon of epistemic dependence on other persons.The new approach still can solve the Meno Problem.Note that transmitted knowledge is a kind of joint achievement.Since joint achievement has final value,transmitted knowledge has final value and thus is more valuable than mere true belief.Then,I consider an objection to Greco's new approach offered by Weiping Zheng.He argues that Greco's new approach cannot explain CHICAGO VISITOR.However,close examination reveals that this objection rests on a misunderstanding of Greco's new approach.According to Greco's new approach,CHICAGO VISITOR is a case of generated knowledge.Therefore,this obj ection fails.In the final analysis,testimonial knowledge does not cause difficulty in Greco's virtue-theoretic solution to the Meno Problem.This solution remains viable.